Cerin, if you insist on bumping your poll threads, please be objective and bump all poll threads.
Lidless, I'm sure Estel is quite capable of bumping her own poll whenever she feels it appropriate. I thought it reasonable that she be the one to do that, since I was quite open about the fact that I felt her question would obfuscate the clarity we were seeking. I preferred to keep the questions that I felt
did work together, together.
First of all I read the Jury room stuff about my suggestion I thought, that it would be considered as a procedure for all vetos (which would be few). Not special circunstance, You could just change the wording for a lighter offense.
Let me see where I might work this in to the current ballot after discussing it with the committee.
Also, I would like to explain anyone requesting access will not get vetoed.
I feel confident that everyone on the committee understands this, and I believe all the ballot options also make it clear.
the poll questions made it look like the old system it is not!!!!
I don't think so, Wilma. I think the options make it clear that every individual announced as seeking access either has their own petitioner's thread, or has an individual thread started for them when someone voices an objection against them. Please review the ballot, and if you still feel this way, specify where you think the idea of considering groups of petitioning members together is conveyed.
No one will understand what Cerin meant
Again, I feel the poll proposals are clear. If you don't, please specify where they convey the wrong idea. I can't make a change if I do not perceive where the change needs to be made.
Also, people will not be vetoed based on their religion!!!
I think we've put that matter to rest. Nin, whose example had raised that point of discussion, explained that that is not what she meant.
I think the best way to define someone who could possibly be vetoed in my book is someone who wants entry into ToE with a malicious intent concerning the info in there.
That is also my understanding of what we're trying to accomplish, Wilma.
It is not some frelling popularity contest of no one liking someone or any such garbage. People are trying to paint into something that it isn't!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't believe that's true, Wilma. What we're trying to do (some of us) is avoid creating a system people
could use as a popularity contest if they wished to subvert the intent of the system.
It is not voting and inviting.
For the poll models, it is a person seeking access and members of the forum voting as a group against them. For some, this is reminiscent of the invitation system, where people's names were put up, and those who didn't want them on b77 spoke out against their inclusion.
Without a screening system the forum is dead.
I agree and I think almost everyone participating on the committee and in these discussions agrees that a screening system is needed. That's exactly what we're working on trying to create.
Also, I will say there is a huge problem in ToE of people with acess who never post. For the few people whi actually post in there it is only assumed they are lurking.
I think some good steps have been taken to address this within the forum. I believe that is an issue that should continue to be handled by the forum members themselves.
Awareness of who has acees and screening out of dangerous people.
I seriously request a rewording of the poll questions.
Wilma, I believe this is exactly what one of the ballot options states. I will include that standard in the poll section as well, per your request.
Please PM me if you have any questions I would gladly try to answer them from my point of view.
I believe it best if we keep all dialogue about this out in the open, where everyone can see it and contribute their thoughts. Thanks!